3 ms·

Sorry, pal, you don't get to dictate the terms of this conversation.

• fzeroracer 8y ago
  Then you're admitting that you're not here to actually debate in any sort of rational manner. If you make a claim and can't substantiate your claim when called out on it, then your claim has no rational or factual basis. At which point your entire argument falls apart, especially when you call something a 'very obvious fact'.
  • SamReidHughes 8y ago
    You're welcome to post a citation showing that increased immigration would reduce traffic and pollution. Otherwise I'm not gonna bother.
    • fzeroracer 8y ago
      It's obvious now that you're not actually willing to properly argue on your side of the debate. The argumentative burden of proof is on the person making the claims, not the one disputing it. The fact that you're being so flippant about your claims does not do your argument justice. Not only that, but now you're attempting to twist the argument into something that it wasn't in the first place. Even if we did decrease immigration, that wouldn't fix the issues of traffic and pollution in America because those are born out of poor city planning combined with lax industrial standards. Unless you want to somehow argue that immigrants contribute more to pollution than corporations doing things like say, flaring in West Texas. If you can't support your claims with evidence when called out on it, then you shouldn't make such bold claims period.
      • SamReidHughes 8y ago
        More people = more traffic is not a bold claim. That's traffic engineering 101.